Wrongful Convictions.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

16 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1Both inmates were approached, agreed to provide DNA samples, andwith the support of counsel and members of the committee, DNA testingwas performed by an accredited lab in the US. The results were notsurprising. DNA showed that the original microscopy examination hadbeen wrong in both cases. The committee referred both back to ManitobaJustice for review, noting that one of the cases, involving Kyle Unger,should be given priority attention. 50The Manitoba review raised some complex and multi-faceted issues.There are a number of ways to analyze those issues, but in my view the bestand most practical way is to examine both the process and the results ofthe review through the lens of the various affected parties andstakeholders. Their reactions ranged from complete support, to a morenuanced lukewarm reception, to outright rage and bewilderment.A. Manitoba Justice’s ReactionThe review process raised some eyebrows within the Department. Wasit a proper role for the Crown to deliberately seek out potential wrongfulconvictions? Where did that mandate come from? Was not the role of theCrown to prosecute crime in an adversarial setting—leaving the interest ofaccused persons and inmates to be represented and protected by theprivate bar or Legal Aid? And what if an inmate wanted to be left alone—preferring, instead, life in an institution? Remember, this was not asituation where an inmate had raised his hand and said, “Please review mycase; I am innocent”. The Department did not know what any particularinmate’s position was, and had no idea whether inmates even wanted areview of their cases. There was, surely, the right to be left alone—free fromgovernment interference, as long as you are adhering to the institution’srules and are abiding by the law.Nonetheless, as described earlier in this essay, Manitoba Justice tookthe institutional view that the Crown has a broad role as “minister ofjustice” to ensure that justice has been done in cases where evidence nowrecognized as unreliable had been tendered and relied upon by theprosecution. 51 In the case of hair microscopy, the sands of scientificopinion had shifted during the previous 30 years, and the Department50FERC Final Report, supra note 47 at 20.51See the discussion and cases supra note 3.